Tuesday 31 March 2009

From something to everything and nothing inbetween

Well is has been an insane week this week. Its been quiet for ages and then suddenly chaos errupts (both good and bad, but gladly more good than bad).

Where are we supposed to be? Thats a question I keep asking myself, and I don't really have any "good" answers, here are some of the ones I came up with which don't seem quite to complete the question in the complimentary form a good answer should (42 ;)):


  • We are supposed to be wherever we are:
This never felt very satisfactory as an answer, indeed I wonder if it even qualifies as an answer anywhere outside of politics ;).
  • We aren't "supposed" to be anywhere, it just is.
This is very similar to the first answer, only with more of a definitive feel to it. Its basicly saying there is no purpose or reason, things just are. Whilst i'm not inherently aposed to this being true, I don't feel it to be true. The closest I could come to believing this is by saying we make our own purposes / reason.
  • We are supposed to be with the ones we love
This answer has always appealed to me the most, and its where I let my self be taken in life. The only problem with this answer is that I have people I cherrish all around the world. Also, whilst I will be in love only in love with a single person, until that person is my life partner (accepts that post ;)) then i'm potentialy not ever at the right location, until I am. If you can follow that twisted logic (that is to say, where i'm supposed to be may change or, looking at it another way, i'm not where i'm supposed to be until its supposed to be too).
  • We are supposed to be at the place where we are happiest
This answer is again very like the last. It sort of encompases the last answer and extends it. Again, it appeals, but it doesn't help... after all, how do you know where your happiest? you can know where your more happy, but that requires moving about... moving about leads to unhappyness and possibly prevents the establishment of happyness.
  • We are supposed to be with Family and Friends

Another variant of the above, prehaps covering the above two. Again unhelpfull, especially as I have friends all around the world. No, i'm not kidding. I've got friends in New Zealand, Britain, Ammerica (California) and Germany. Though, I must admit my strongest friends are between Britain and New Zealand (so i'm only drawn between two countries 22,000 miles or more appart).

  • There is no such thing as supposed

This is tempting to argue from a logical stance. "Supposed" comes from having something you are meant to do. Meaning is something derived from others or
self (We say, I mean... or you mean. Sometimes we even says "It means" but usually, upon investigation, the "it" will lead back to a person or organisation. Lets take for example someone asking "what does the alarm mean?" or just "What does it mean?" the alarm doesn't of itself have a specific meaning, we, as people assign meaning to things. Therefore, I would say all meaning flows from people. The question is, is that where meaning begins and ends?

That brings us to faith, you could define faith as a form of "self" or "personal" meaning in that we decide our faiths (choose our meanings) even if that choice is there is none (its a form of meaning, it means we don't beleive).

So prehaps the question becomes, does meaning flow from a source? are we each sources or is their a single source. Is meaning, meaningless without people for it to mean to? probably.

So what does all this mean? Well, for my life it means that I don't know really where I belong, or if even belonging is something that has any true meaning?

I feel like I belong to someone... I want to belong. Though, i'm very fussy about who my owner is ;). Theres one girl i'd give everything for, because she once gave so much to me, so much happyness... she still does in truth, but now there is a sadness too because something was lost for her, but not for me (maybe it never was for her, maybe I just lost the illusion of it).

I digress, the point is... I think belonging has to do with any "supposed to be". Maybe nothings "supposed" until we belong? maybe even belonging is not supposed until it is.

Maybe supposed comes into existance with belonging.

Well, now everyone is equally confused as I... time to leave you all thinking.

DoggyDude

Sunday 29 March 2009

One person one vote for everything!

We live in a connected world, we communicate instantly by mobile phones and messaging systems yet funilly only 1% of the population actually influences choice.

This seems wrong. It wouldn't be so bad if that 1% was the elite thinkers, the genuises... but those seem to have better things to do with there time and are generally doing them. No, its the busy bodies, the opportunists and the manipulators which seem to be doing all the controlling (and if we are luck, well meaning idiots like certain polititions named Tony).

"There is no reason why the entire populus could not have a direct voting power against every major government decision in the current technological climate." DoggyDude 2006-2009.

Now, I know people might argue the following points against this:

* Not everyone has sufficient knowledge to contribute to a decision

My resonse: Even someone who is known to be mentally ill has a valid oppinion for their own self.

Most of the people making the decisions are only considered sane by majority.. in other words everything is about majority oppinon in this world. If the majority of the world was mentally ill it would be defined as sane and the minority well people as "statisticly insignifcan oppinion" (at best).

Sometimes, yes, if the matter requires detailed knowledge of something scientific it can be better judged by scientists. However, all science must needs have a purpose for society in general... if it does not have a social or humantiarian purpose I immidiately question its ultimate value if it will effect us all but not have a benifical purpose? If it has a purpose, everyone can judge based on the purpose verses the cost. People with the knowledge can provide a range of oppinions for the voters and each intelegent being can decide for themselves.


* Not everyone has access to technology
My Response: Well, everyone should... I bought my mobile phone for £32 in WHSmiths. That, at minimum wage, is less than a days pay.

* Only people directly involved should be making the decisions
My Response: This is a valid point sometimes. However, I did say major decision. That is, effecting everyone. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a minor decision and a major decision. It is a relatively minor decisiont to re-surface a road, but if that road is the M1.. well you see my point.

I think everyone should have a "say" in decisions. Public oppinon should sway decisions not define decisions.

What the heck, i'm bored....

Haven't really bothered getting to the whole blogging sceen, too much to do, too many things to do....

Then, I haven't been taking any time for myself reciently... its about time I did.

The world has officially gone insane! Its a new kind of insanity, and its a good deal better than insanities of the past... but its insane none the less.

How is it, that our so called leaders don't understand that money cannot solve all problems? How is it also they cannot look at what happened in other economies where more money was printed in an effort to resolve problems... to my knowledge, there isn't a single situation in which the "pumping of more money into the economy" resolved any of the issues that the extra money was supposed to resolve (yet, all the leaders doing it will swear blind it worked and was necessary... if they said otherwise they might be lynched for defrauding the public).

Also, why, oh, why is it the people who just lost all the money who are being given more? Why not give it to the people who SAVED or made a profit for themselves and their workers?

Seems to me that what the world needs is not money and talk of depression, recession, fiscal poilicy and stimulus packages but is some good old fashioned hard work, effort and a reason (not necessarily financial) to make that effort. If we devalue the currency it doesn't help!

Logic dictates there is no less work to be done in the world, statistics seem to prove that there are more people in the world. So, there must be things to be done, there must be jobs to be made or had... and it doesn't seem that money is the issue? Money has to have a bearing, of course, people need to be paid! If there isn't the money to pay the people but there are still the jobs then this is not going to be solved by adding more money... this migh be solved by re-evaluating worth, identifying why the people needing the work done don't have the money to pay for it.

Whichever way this goes, we can be sure of one thing... those at the top will suffer the least. I, not being a what could be reported "the top" will suffer somewhat...